SEIU reps pleased with tentative contract

05.10.12 - 4:15 pm | Yael Chanoff |

(46)

SEIU workers march April 18, demanding a contract much like the one they got

PHOTO BY ANNA BAKALIS

After heated negotiations, the city has come to a tentative two-year contract agreement with SEIU Local 1021.

The union, which represents 12,000 city workers, has staged large protests in recent weeks while negotiators worked on the contract. The union was opposed to pay cuts and increases in health care costs that the city originally proposed.

With the new agreement, city workers will get a three percent pay increase, to kick in next year.

The arbitrator of the negotiations also ruled in favor of the union on the issue of temporary workers, who mostly don’t currently enjoy benefits or job security. Now, temporary city workers who have worked 1500 hours over the past three years will be prioritized for permanent jobs.

The SEIU did compromise on some parts of the deal. The new contract won’t include travel pay previously provided to people who commute outside the city for work. There will also be new restrictions placed on union organizing, as union stewards will need to be “escorted” into what the city deems “confidential areas,” restricting union access to work environments.

Larry Bradshaw, 1021 Vice President, has been at the table since negotiations began in February. “I’m very happy with the results,” said Bradshaw. “Its the first agreement since 2009 where the city is not going to balance the budget on the back of working families.”

In the years since 2009, city workers have had deferred pay wages, wage concessions, and increased health care costs. Bradshaw says the new contract will put base wages back at 2009 levels.

“I think in the first years of the recession our members were willing to sacrifice,” said Bradshaw. “But then year after year, they don’t want to keep doing that when the city is not going after corporations. They’re just sitting on wealth and the city is not taxing that wealth.”

That sentiment has led to the SEIU’s call for increased taxes on some corporations in the city. That’s the issue they address in the above video, which may become a TV commercial for what may become a ballot measure in November that would restructure the business tax code.

SEIU Local 1021 members are currently in the process of voting to ratify the contract. The vote will be done by Monday evening, just in time for the Board of Supervisors to ratify the agreement at their May 15 meeting.

Comments

SEIU members got paid to travel from their homes to work?

That is absolutely unbelievable. I don't know anyone in the private sector who gets "travel pay" to drive, bike or BART between their home or their work.

Posted by Troll II on May. 11, 2012 @ 10:08 am

Troll, you "don't know anyone" being paid by their employers

to commute because you are freaking ignorant. Stop trying to make any points here: the only thing you are getting across is that you are dumb as a bag of hammers and just as capable of processing new information.

Anyone else who thought you might have a point can keyword search "tax free commuter benefits" or refer to this representative web page:

http://metro.kingcounty.gov/cs/employer/ctr-taxinfo.html

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 12, 2012 @ 8:37 pm

That IS NOT what SEIU were receiving

and you know it. It's revealing that every time you write another ignorant comment you couple it with an ad-hominem attack on your opponents. Another giant FAIL on your part.

Posted by Troll II on May. 12, 2012 @ 9:40 pm

Why oh why did the city cave on this? Outrageous.

How will we ever fix the deficit with largesse like this?

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2012 @ 10:34 am

Sweet deals for the city family

"""In the years since 2009, city workers have had deferred pay wages, wage concessions, and increased health care costs."""

Their health care costs just rose 500%! From $9 a month to $45 a month!!

The horror!

And what? no pay raises for three years? That's terrible. Their managers are acting as if there has been a bad recession or something.

Their pension costs rose another $60 million last year and are set to keep rising. Hence, look for more cuts in street cleaning, more cuts in services at SF General, higher parking ticket fees, etc., etc....until the city goes broke

Posted by Troll the XIV on May. 11, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

I'm stunned the city gave them anything

Freeze their pay, cut their benefits, and they still won't quit their jobs as they know a good deal when they see one.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2012 @ 1:22 pm

Let

them quit less waste of our money!

Posted by Joe Smuchatelli on May. 20, 2012 @ 7:34 am

Good god.

The city is handing out raises? We need to shrink the size of the city workforce. There is no reason a City/County the size of San Francisco should employ 26,000 people. The population is only around 800,000 and geographically, the city is small. San Francisco has lost its way. Municipal government is supposed to provide services to residents, not have a mission of employing as many people as possible and giving them pay and benefits the private sector don't get.

And that commercial is laughable.

Posted by The Commish on May. 11, 2012 @ 4:49 pm

Hopefully the cost will be clawed back thru layoffs so that

the budget will be spared any more stress.

I'd like to see 10% cuts across the board except for public safety.

In fact, a 3% raise should only be offered in return for 3% layoffs.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2012 @ 5:00 pm

get your facts straight

I'm a city worker I pay 435 dollars a month for me and my wife for our medical not 45 dollars we as civil servants work night weekends holidays Christmas etc . when i retire after 30 years I will have a pre tax pension of about 45.000 dollars a year and have to pay my medical cost out of that . I gave 7.5 % to the city of my pension two contracts ago and was supposed to have it returned after two years that never happened I have forgone pay raises that were to be given back that never happened why don't you talk about the pay raised that the mayor and the board and the managers have given to them selves after every contract and my manager gets a car to drive home for a 1.50 cents a day that includes gas when you see a Toyota Prius with a city sticker on it its a manager not a everyday worker for the city .and most live outside of San Francisco so they get a car in case of an emergency . but its the workers that will have to do all the dirty work when the earthquake hits not the manager if you want to go on a witch hunt and a wasteof money trail start at city hall and go down from there just go to sf jobs and look at what the managers pay starts at compared to the labor represented pay and that is just the start of the managers perks .

Posted by Guest city worker on May. 11, 2012 @ 8:37 pm

45K pa is a lot for someone who cannot even use punctuation.

Think yourself fortunate.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 6:25 am

^ what kind of condescending,

^ what kind of condescending, insecure snob writes gets up at 6 a.m. on a Saturday to write this shit?

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 1:16 pm

You assume I'm in the same timezone as you?

Another 45K pa level intellect.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

^Notice the expert on

^Notice the expert on equating money with intellect doesn't quibble with the 'insecure snob' comment, only the time zone thing.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 2:29 pm

Since your cheap "insecure snob" comment was predicated on

the idea of posting at 6am, it is reasonable to refute that by simply pointing out that your assumption was flawed.

Perhaps if you focused more on the substance of posts rather than throwaway insults, you'd have more success in debates.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 2:34 pm

Actually, the guest pretty much nailed you with the insecure...

snob crack. Whether are an internet commuter troll or a local troll means nothing: its evident from just about everything you have written.

While you may have the modicum of wit required to make cheap objections regarding punctuation, etc, you might not in fact have the intelligence, physical stamina, or motor skills to be able to wax a floor properly. On what basis do you annoint yourself with the right to judge others proper remuneration? (Rhetorical question.)

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 12, 2012 @ 4:12 pm

You mean you posted as "Guest" to agree with yourself.

That's the real definition of a troll.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 4:42 pm

Do you mean I posted as "lillipublicans" to agree with "guest?"

... or do you mean that you are not very bright?

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 12, 2012 @ 5:18 pm

where do you people get your info

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2012 @ 8:32 pm

I'm a city worker I pay 435

Posted by Guest city worker on May. 11, 2012 @ 8:37 pm

Out of touch with reality

"when i retire after 30 years I will have a pre tax pension of about 45.000 dollars a year"

Great. I'll get about $1,300 a month, according to my letter from SS last year.

Posted by Troll the XIV on May. 12, 2012 @ 9:43 am

And you're paying for his pension as well as your own.

How did we ever get to this insane situation?

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 11:36 am

To The Commish, Why should

To The Commish, Why should every work take a 10% pay cut except for public safety? Firemen and COPs get the most pay in this city. Are they the only important agency in the city. FIRE and COPS have gotten raises every year. There are many city workers that do public safety like DPW and DPH and they get no where the salary and benefits of the fire dept.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2012 @ 11:15 pm

Public safety is the only thing I really need from the city.

The rest, I'd privatize or simply get rid of.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 6:27 am

To the Guest:

I think police and fire should take a pay cut, too. A substantial pay cut.

And I think there are too many firefighters. We don't need a fire station every square mile in the City.

But your post misses the point. You suggest that it's not fair for you to take a pay cut when police/fire haven't. What I'm saying is it's not fair to the taxpayers to be funding the largesse of (i) too many employees across the board (ii) at too high salaries, (iii) getting benefits that the taxpayers who are funding them don't get.

All city employees should take large pay cuts and the entire city workforce should shrink.

Posted by The Commish on May. 12, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

Yes, this is the deal that should have been put to SEIU

Either:

1) Cut your pay and benefits package costs by 20% across the board, or

2) Immediate layoffs of one city worker in five

Eventually bankruptcy will ensure that this deal will be "offered" to the city workers. But wouldn't it be so much better to resolve the anomaly without all that pain and suffering?

Voters are not in the mood to vote for tax increases merely to fund better pensions than they have themselves. The politics of envy works in both directions.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 2:20 pm

City employees are thieves.

Let's not for forget to thank them for their "service" every time we drive over a huge pothole or stuff quarters in the meter on Sunday. Crooks.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 6:27 am

I see city workers more as parasites than as thieves.

I don't think they are dishonest, although some of them may be. But rather they have an over-developed sense of entitlement due to what they perceive is the fact that they have a "job for life" and pay and benefits that can forever be funded through ever higher taxes on the rest of us.

If a private bus driver gets 30K pa, why do muni drivers make twice that? Why do we pay city janitors 40K pa when the same job in the private sector pays 20K?

We're not getting value for money.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 7:28 am

Parasites rather than thieves, eh? How do you rate the bankers?

And do you have any clue how hard it is to get a city job? Do you have any clue what the work conditions are? Weekly and sometimes daily shift changes? I would guess the answer is no.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 12, 2012 @ 7:58 am

It's hard to get a city job because everyone wants one.

Who wouldn;t want job security for life, unaffordable health and pension benefits, and a salary that is twice what you could get in the private sector.

I've seen no evidence that city workers are worth double what they'd get elsewhere.

The vast majority of people who work for banks did nothing wrong.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 8:49 am

I've seen no evidence that you know what you are talking about.

You think someone with a chauffer's license comes so cheap? You think that many people seeking city jobs of which few succeed does not equate to the pool of city workers being far above average?

The majority of people who run banks are leeches; your throwing in "workers" in lieu of "bankers" is just another of your red herrings.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 12, 2012 @ 9:42 am

So a janitor who works for the city is "above average"?

And a janitor who works for a bank is a leech?

Convenient, huh?

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 11:35 am

Hush pitiful troll. Everyone can tell how miserable your life is

by your failure to stifle your own irredeemable tendency to skew reality, and your evident need to falsely project your own superiority and self-comfort.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 12, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

Ah yes, the point where you abandon debate and resort to

insults and abuse.

I can always tell with you when I've won the debate.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 12:21 pm

Sure you can always tell when you've won: its when you start

... making up facts and false characterizations of the points that have been made against your position. Cuckoo.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 12, 2012 @ 12:53 pm

I'm still waiting for your demonstration that a

city janitor has more skills than a bank's janitor.

You conveniently abandoned the debate when that question as asked of you.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

No. I abandon the debate because you've demonstrated no

integrity with regard to characterizing my responses. "Bank janitor is a leech" didn't come from me, it came from you. I won't debate you because I don't see the value in doing so while sticking to logic and facts while you are so evidently willing to pull bits of nonsense out of your butt in response -- and I'm not willing to lower myself to your level.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 12, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

OK, so no refutation then.

As I figure

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

Sure there's a refutation. I refute your ability to carry on an

intelligent conversation. Proof is above.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 12, 2012 @ 4:14 pm

I accept your inability to substantiate your claim that a

city janitor is worth more than a bank janitor.

QED.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 4:43 pm

Thats the point

The only people hired by the City is someone's cousin that can't speak a word of english and after their 30 days are in we are stuck with their worthless ass for life, we should reduce the number of City employee's by 60-70 % atleast probably more!

Posted by Joe Smuchatelli on May. 20, 2012 @ 7:42 am

People want City jobs because the city overpaids on salaries

This was interesting from the city worker:

"The mayor and the board and the managers have given to them selves after every contract and my manager gets a car to drive home for a 1.50 cents a day that includes gas when you see a Toyota Prius with a city sticker on it its a manager not a everyday worker for the city .and most live outside of San Francisco so they get a car in case of an emergency"

I agree with you about your managers: far overpaid.

And what's this about city managers driving city cars home, often outside of the city, and charging the General Fund for that?

Somebody (Matier & Ross maybe?) needs to look into this.

Posted by Troll the XIV on May. 12, 2012 @ 9:41 am

Larry Bradshaw, union clown.

"They’re just sitting on wealth and the city is not taxing that wealth.”

I can remember when CA city employees were public servants and not set out to simply to do as little work and extract enough wealth as possible from the private sector.

I see the word "parasite" in here - sounds apropos.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 10:00 am

CA budget deficit now $16 billion- thank you government unions!!

Our blessed public servants...

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 1:17 pm

SF: $7 billion budget and worst street conditions in the state..

...next to Oakland.

Thank you City employees. You're doing god's work....!!

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2012 @ 4:34 pm

HMMM

"Larry Bradshaw, 1021 Vice President, has been at the table since negotiations began in February. “I’m very happy with the results,” said Bradshaw."

All I know is that if he is happy we are screwed...